Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership. The term is mostly used by animal rights advocates, who argue that speciesism is a prejudice similar to racism or sexism, in that the treatment of individuals is predicated on group membership and morally irrelevant physical differences. The argument is that species membership has no moral significance.

Speciesism is something I came across not terribly long ago on gaia while reading a debate about whether or not people should be allowed to have sex with animals, or judged for having sex with animals. The argument was that just because animals do not vocalize consent, does not mean they cannot consent. After all, dogs have been used for sex for decades at the very least, and seem to show just as much interest in mounting a human as they do another dog (or the house cat, or whatever).

Now, to my understanding, speciesism is generally a term used by vegans or the like who oppose various forms of non-human treatment of animals, to include eating them.

But lately it seems to be picking up momentum in the pro-animal sex field. The question of consent has long been debated, and I'd like to know your views on the matter. Do you feel speciesism should also encompass those who discriminate against sex with animals? Do you feel such discrimination is/isn't warranted?

Having sex with animals is disgusting. You only deserve to be looked down on if you engage in something like that. Also, speciesism is not a real thing, and certainly not comparable to racism or sexism

Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership. The term is mostly used by animal rights advocates, who argue that speciesism is a prejudice similar to racism or sexism, in that the treatment of individuals is predicated on group membership and morally irrelevant physical differences. The argument is that species membership has no moral significance.

Speciesism is something I came across not terribly long ago on gaia while reading a debate about whether or not people should be allowed to have sex with animals, or judged for having sex with animals. The argument was that just because animals do not vocalize consent, does not mean they cannot consent. After all, dogs have been used for sex for decades at the very least, and seem to show just as much interest in mounting a human as they do another dog (or the house cat, or whatever).

Now, to my understanding, speciesism is generally a term used by vegans or the like who oppose various forms of non-human treatment of animals, to include eating them.

But lately it seems to be picking up momentum in the pro-animal sex field. The question of consent has long been debated, and I'd like to know your views on the matter. Do you feel speciesism should also encompass those who discriminate against sex with animals? Do you feel such discrimination is/isn't warranted?

I despise the animal fckers. An animal cannot consent to sexual interaction nor can it protest, and if it does, the sick freak will either 1. report the animal, leading to a likely euthanization or 2. just keep abusing the animal in order to gain personal gratification. The female animal will likely just submit, as that's how it would go in the animal world, but that doesn't mean the animal 'wants it' - that's instinct working.

Screwing animals is just another form of animal abuse when it comes to people fcking animals, not to mention it comes right back to people through the introduction of STDs and various viral or bacterial infections.

The people who argue that animals can 'consent' to sexual intercourse, or who argue that it is 'speciesist' to hold people to different standards than animals are simply being moronic.

To the first issue of animal consent, they make a slew of mistakes, chief of which is attempting to prescribe a concept of rationality (consent) to a creature which lacks rationality. This results in a perversion of the word. Consent is a concept that necessitates the consenting entity have the mental capacity to way the costs and benefits, consider alternatives, and process the implications of their choices free of duress or force. Animals by and large, especially the animals commonly engaged in sex with humans, literally lack the parts of the brain needed before a conversation about consent can begin. Its like arguing a car can fly when it has absolutely none of the needed elements for flight that science has affirmed time and again.

As a sub-element of this consent discussion, they confuse a natural response to stimuli with rational consent. To get really graphic for a moment in illustrating this point, lets pretend there is a 35 year old man who rapes a 14 year old girl. That the girl's v****a began secreting vaginal fluid or that she had an orgasm mean she 'consented' to the sex act? Of course not- those would be seen by any rational being to be natural responses outside of the girl's control and in no way evidence any consent on her part. Yet, for these animal sex people, this somehow does amount to consent when animals do the same thing. Its moronic.

To the second issue, they act as if speciesism is a bad thing. I am sure they would not allow a man to murder another man because he was attempting to flirt with his girlfriend or wife. However, this behavior is quite common in our closer animal relatives like chimps. Should we hold ourselves to the standards of chimps? No in that case I am sure, but when we discuss ideas of consent we should 'dumb it down' to include animals just in the realm of sexual intercourse. Or we should hold humans to a lower standard in terms of acting on sexual desires just when it comes to animals.

And that premise makes the false assertion that we are somehow greater than the other animals just because we know to make horrific scars upon the Earth's surface as we bend its resources to our will.

The truth is, we're not the same as the other animals, just as they're not the same as one another. That doesn't make one animal better than the other. Cats are not better than dogs, and dogs are not better than cats, it's only the value we attribute to them.

And the value we attribute to humans is characteristically high, as we are humans, and we have a tendency to be selfish and heavily biased towards our own kind.

Not that we're alone in this. Hell, insects like bees and ants are horribly tribalistic as well, just like humans they'll attack and kill anyone from another hive or colony, especially if they appear to be a threat to their own hive or colony.